4.  The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Trnava.
5.  The present case concerns claims asserted by the applicant on the basis of his employment under a contract of 1980, amended as of 1982, and terminated by notice of his employer in 1997. This employment gave rise to three sets of proceedings, two of which are relevant for the present case.
6.  The proceedings directly concerned by the present application are those in the applicant’s action of 2005 (see paragraphs 7 et seq. below). The proceedings concerned indirectly are those in his action of 1998 (see paragraph 9 below).
7.  On 1 February 2005 the applicant lodged an action with the Trnava District Court (file no. 26C 9/2005) arguing that in the period from the amendment of his employment contract of 1982 until the notice of 1997 he had been paid under a wrong salary grade. Accordingly, he sought an order for payment of the equivalent of some 75.850 euros (EUR) by way of compensation.
8.  On 7 February 2005 the applicant extended his action in that he also sought a ruling declaring the 1982 amendment to his employment contract valid and still in force.
9.  The applicant subsequently requested that the proceedings in his action of 2005 be joined with the proceedings in his action of 1998, in which he was contesting the notice of 1997.
10.  On 15 November 2006 the Trnava District Court discontinued the proceedings in the action of 2005 but the decision was quashed by the Trnava Regional Court on 28 September 2007, following the applicant’s appeal.
11.  As a consequence of the reorganisation of the judiciary as from 1 January 2008, the action of 2005 was transferred to Piešťany District Court (file no. 5C 28/2008).
12.  On 23 March 2010 the applicant made a submission aimed at further specifying the subject-matter of his 2005 action.
13.  On 8 June 2010 the Piešťany District Court dismissed the 2005 action because the applicant’s financial claims were statute‑barred and he had failed to demonstrate a pressing legal interest in having the declaratory ruling made. However, this judgment was quashed by the Regional Court on 31 January 2012, following the applicant’s appeal, on the ground that the first‑instance court had failed to take any decision in respect of the applicant’s submission of 23 March 2010.
14.  On 3 December 2012 the Piešťany District Court allowed the extension of the applicant’s 2005 action as sought in his submission of 23 March 2010 and, on 26 February 2013, it dismissed the amended 2005 action. It found that the applicant’s financial claims were partly statute‑barred and partly unfounded and that, in any event, his employment had been effectively terminated by operation of the notice of 1997.
15.  The applicant appealed and his appeal is still pending.
16.  The applicant made several complaints to the administration of courts about the length of the proceedings in his action of 2005, all to no avail.
17.  On 15 November 2006 the applicant lodged a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution with the Constitutional Court contesting the length of the proceedings in his 2005 action before the Trnava District Court.
18.  On 30 November 2006 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible as being manifestly ill‑founded. It concluded that, despite certain delays in the proceedings, their length had not reached a level incompatible with the reasonable-time requirement.
19.  On 23 September 2009 the applicant resorted to the Constitutional Court again, alleging a violation of the reasonable-time requirement by the Trnava District Court and the Trnava Regional Court.
20.  On 14 October 2009 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible as being belated. It observed that as from 1 January 2008 the 2005 action was no longer pending before the Trnava District Court but before the Piešťany District Court. Accordingly, from that time on the Trnava District Court could not have been violating the applicant’s right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. For unclear reasons, the conclusion was extended to the Trnava Regional Court.
21.  On 21 October 2009 the applicant made further submissions to the Constitutional Court which resulted into a third constitutional complaint about the length of the proceedings in the 2005 action. The complaint was considered formally to have been lodged on 10 December 2009 and it was directed both against the Trnava District Court and the Piešťany District Court.
22.  On 31 March 2010 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible.
In so far as the complaint related to the Trnava District Court, it was inadmissible as the matter was considered a res iudicata by force of the Constitutional Court’s decision of 14 October 2009.
As to the Piešťany District Court, the Constitutional Court found that the applicant had failed to comply with the statutory requirement for the admissibility of constitutional complains to exhaust ordinary remedies in that he had failed to assert his length-of-proceedings complaint before the President of the Piešťany District Court.
23.  On 28 November 2011 the applicant lodged an action against the State in the person of the Ministry of Justice. He relied on the State Liability Act and argued that there had been unjustified delays in the proceedings in his actions of 1998 and 2005 and that these delays amounted to wrongful official action, for which he sought financial compensation.
24.  On 26 October 2012 the Trnava District Court dismissed the action finding that the applicant had failed to show any unlawfulness or wrongful official action and neither had he shown having sustained any damage.
25.  The applicant appealed and his appeal is still pending.